"Laptop Learning: A Comparison of Teaching and Learning in Upper Elementary Classrooms Equipped With Shared Carts of Laptops and Permanent 1:1 Laptops."-A Summary
Introduction:
This study compared differences in instructional practices and learning activities between two different sets of classrooms. One set had shared laptops on a cart and the other classrooms were permanently equipped with laptops. It is important to note that in the classrooms where students had a laptop permanently, these students owned the laptop. The parents either paid $1800, or received a grant to purchase a laptop. Nobody was turned away. In the other classrooms, where the students shared laptops, they had access for a one-week period every five weeks, to create a temporary 1:1 environment. Also, the students already had laptops before the study began. Neither the students nor teachers were randomly chosen for this study and the research took place after the program began. The principal invited the researchers to determine the differences between the two strategies for providing students with access to laptops. This study is the first that directly compares teaching and learning activities in classrooms that provide 1:1 computing environments using these two strategies.
Methods for Collecting the Data:
Four types of data were collected to determine various instructional practices and learning activities in the shared laptop classrooms and 1:1 laptop classrooms and then were analyzed. These four types are:
1. Observation checklists: Classroom observations of students' engagement level, number of students working with technology, working independently, in pairs, small groups large groups and the role of the teacher were recorded every ten minutes.
2. Narrative accounts: During a one-hour observation period the observers recorded teacher-student interactions, uses of technology and engagement. A detailed summary was written after each observation.
3. Interview: Teachers were interviewed about their use of technology in the classroom.
4. Survey: Students completed a survey that focused on their use of technology at school and at home. They also completed a drawing the prompt: “Think about the work you do in your classroom. In the space below, draw a picture of yourself writing in school.”
Results of the Study:
When comparing the 1:1 laptop classrooms and the shared cart classrooms, Russell et al found five compelling factors in instructional practices and learning activities. There were significant differences in the frequent use of technology, student motivation and engagement, classroom structure, computers used as a writing tool, and computers used for academic purposes.
First, Russell et al found that technology was used more frequently in 1:1 classrooms and concluded that "full computer access is associated with increased technology use" (Russell et al, 2004). When teachers and students have access to technology it makes sense that it would get used more frequently, than if they did not have access to it, or if it was not easily accessible. However, Russell et al state that the "magnitude of the difference in technology was dramatic" (Russell et al., 2004). For example, students in the shared laptop classrooms used computers for 15 minutes or less during class time and even 15-60 minutes a day, whereas in the 1:1 classrooms students used technology between 1 to 2 hours or more per day. The variety in the way they used the laptops also varied between the two settings. In the 1:1 classrooms, students used computers across all subject areas and for different purposes. One teacher commented that "“The ways in which they use technology are much more in depth: for presentations and note-taking they use PowerPoint, word processing is almost constant, the Internet has a much larger presence for science, social studies, and math" (Russell et al, 2004).
They also found that students' motivation and engagement was higher in the 1:1 classrooms and found that the learning became more student centered and at times it was individualized. Russell et al found that students in the 1:1 classroom found that peer conferencing was a strategy used two times more frequently than in the shared classrooms. While the data showed a significant difference, with students in the 1:1 classrooms being more engaged, teachers also reported that the students "appear more motivated and interested in assignments on the computer" and that increased laptop access had "leveled the playing field" for all students, including special education students (Russell et al, 2004).
The classroom structure was different between the 1:1 classroom and shared classrooms. These include student-student interactions, teacher-student interactions and even the way in which activities were structured. In the 1:1 laptop classrooms, students were observed working alone more often, which suggests that instruction is more individualized in this environment. Whereas, in the shared classrooms students were observed working in small and large groups more frequently. Teachers were also observed teaching the whole group nearly two times more frequently in the shared laptop classrooms. In contrast, peer conferencing was observed two times more frequently in the 1:1 laptop classrooms. Teachers also reported that they were able to individualize instruction with full access to technology.
Next, computers were the students’ primary writing tool in the 1:1 classrooms and used it many times throughout the day. It was observed that students in the 1:1 classrooms composed text on laptop computers more frequently than the students in the shared classrooms. More importantly though is that teachers commented that quality of writing had improved. One teacher stated that “the volume of writing has increased in all areas of the curriculum" and "teaching process writing has progressed more quickly" (Russell et al, 2004). They even viewed themselves as learners with laptops, revealing that computers are part of the learning process. The students survey results showed where they had to complete a prompt clearly reveals this. The prompt asked students to: “Think about the work you do in your classroom. In the space below, draw a picture of yourself writing in school.” Results showed that in the shared laptop classrooms students' pictures included a laptop and 2.9% using a desktop, whereas in the 1:1 classroom 91.9% of students depicted a laptop in their drawing (Russell et al, 2004).
Finally, it was reported by both the 1:1 laptop classrooms and shared laptop classrooms, that the most frequent use of computers at home was for playing games. However, results from the study show that students in 1:1 classrooms used the computer at home more frequently for academic purposes and reported that the second most frequent use of their home computer was to search the Internet for school related work, followed closely by searching the Internet for fun and writing papers for school. I wonder if this is because the teachers know that students will have access to computers at home and design their homework accordingly.
Important Factors:
Important factors that made this study successful:
The teachers and students were motivated from the beginning of the research, since there were no random assignments to the 1:1 laptop classroom. The 1:1 laptop classrooms served students whose parents and teachers were enthusiastic about and committed to 1:1 computing.
In the 1:1 laptop classrooms, the students owned their laptop. Parents either paid for it or received a grant.
The principal had a strong vision for the use of technology with curriculum integration. There was also strong parent support and they were enthusiastic and even formed a support network to provide technical assistance for each other.
Teachers received professional development on technology at the district level and discussed technology at staff meetings twice a month.
Limitations:
There are some limitations in this research that needs to be noted.
Most of the research is based on anecdotal evidence, which tends to be more subjective than systematic research that is more objective. The teachers, being highly motivated, would want to be successful, so would likely focus on the successes. The comments by the teachers throughout the article seemed very positive and there were few challenges mentioned by the teachers in the research. Comments like "teaching process writing has progressed more quickly in my opinion because of the rate at which students are able to process their ideas in an aesthetically pleasing and organized way that lends itself to more efficient revising and editing” (Russell et al, 2004). The interpretations are based on the observer and through interview questions.
The researchers came in to study the classrooms after the laptop programs had begun, so it was not possible to examine the effects of the technology using a pre-post research design.
Neither students nor teachers were randomly assigned to the 1:1 laptop classrooms.
There is no evidence of an increase in student achievement due to more access to technology. Although the 1:1 laptop environment changed the learning and teaching, I wonder what kind of impact it has on student achievement?
There was a lot of parent support, so I wonder what would the results be if with little or no parent support?
Conclusions:
While there are some shortcomings with this research, evidence that teaching and learning changes with full access to laptops is apparent. Clearly, when full access to laptops is provided, technology use for a variety of academic purposes increases significantly. Between the two settings, 1:1 laptops and shared classrooms, there were differences in the frequent use of technology, student motivation and engagement, classroom structure, computers used as a writing tool, and computers used for academic purposes. Professional development, support of parents and a vision by the principal were important factors to the success of the program. As seen in this study, when students have full access to laptops on a permanent basis, student use rises to a level that is likely to result in increased learning across a variety of curricular areas. Russell et al state that for future research it would be important to study the use of technology on student achievement in high access settings, such as the 1:1 laptop classrooms (Russell et al, 2004).
How do the articles compare?
How does this article compare to "What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching?" by Dunleavy et al and "Kamehameha Schools Maui Laptop Project: Findings from Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews?" by Rockman et al?
The research in Dunleavy included middle school students and staff, in Rockman et al, the study was conducted with high school students and in Russell et al, the research was in upper elementary classrooms. While Dunleavy and Rockman both reported classroom management as one of the challenges with 1:1 laptop use, the research in Russell did not mention classroom management as a challenge. For the research study in the upper elementary classroom by Russell et al, I wonder if classroom management strategies were discussed during the teacher's professional development sessions and staff meetings where teachers could openly discuss their concerns. I also wondered if classroom management wasn't a noted challenge in the upper elementary classrooms because parents, teachers and students were clearly motivated in the 1:1 laptop program.
Dunleavy, Rockman and Russell all describe how 1:1 laptops create effective learning environments and looks at instructional practices and learning activities. In these studies, instructional practices of the teachers had a significant impact effect on the "value" of the laptops. Also, teachers reported that instruction was more individualized with 1:1 laptops. In Dunleavy, drill and practice were the second most common use for 1:1 laptops in the classroom and this provided quick assessment and students could work at their own pace. Rockman et al found a variety of uses for computer use in the classroom including: laptops for Internet research, PowerPoint presentations, and word processing, teachers reported that students also conducted virtual dissections, created Web pages, and created a soundtrack CD to accompany a class reading. Russell found that computers were the primary writing tool and used laptops across all subjects.
All articles discussed the effectiveness of the laptops for teaching and learning, however none of these studies had results to show the effectiveness of the different teaching strategies. Yes, students were more engaged and the teachers were able to individualize instruction, but to what extent were using laptops effective? What were the effects for student achievement? Did the laptops help them understand the information better? Did it help them develop higher thinking skills? Russell et al effectively contends that there needs to be further research in 1:1 laptop use to determine the effects on student achievement (Russell et al, 2004).
Finally, an important factor for the success of computer use in the classroom, noted in all of the articles, is for teachers to have supports in place including professional development for training in using the technology effectively in the classrooms. In Russell et al, teachers had professional development for training in technology and time was allotted to share ideas and support each other through discussions at staff meetings. Rockman et al, also found that it is important that teachers receive training for all teachers that include the mechanics for using the laptops as well as support for integration of curriculum. Dunleavy contends the importance of quality training and modeling for teachers to create effective learning environments through instructional practice, resources, and assessment practices.
Bibibliography:
Russell et al. (2004) Laptop Learning: A Comparison of Teaching and Learning in Upper Elementary Classrooms Equipped With Shared Carts of Laptops and Permanent 1:1 Laptops. http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/Andover1to1.pdf
"Laptop Learning: A Comparison of Teaching and Learning in Upper Elementary Classrooms Equipped With Shared Carts of Laptops and Permanent 1:1 Laptops." - A Summary
Introduction:
This study compared differences in instructional practices and learning activities between two different sets of classrooms. One set had shared laptops on a cart and the other classrooms were permanently equipped with laptops. It is important to note that in the classrooms where students had a laptop permanently, these students owned the laptop. The parents either paid $1800, or received a grant to purchase a laptop. Nobody was turned away. In the other classrooms, where the students shared laptops, they had access for a one-week period every five weeks, to create a temporary 1:1 environment. Also, the students already had laptops before the study began. Neither the students nor teachers were randomly chosen for this study and the research took place after the program began. The principal invited the researchers to determine the differences between the two strategies for providing students with access to laptops. This study is the first that directly compares teaching and learning activities in classrooms that provide 1:1 computing environments using these two strategies.
Methods for Collecting the Data:
Four types of data were collected to determine various instructional practices and learning activities in the shared laptop classrooms and 1:1 laptop classrooms and then were analyzed. These four types are:
1. Observation checklists: Classroom observations of students' engagement level, number of students working with technology, working independently, in pairs, small groups large groups and the role of the teacher were recorded every ten minutes.
2. Narrative accounts: During a one-hour observation period the observers recorded teacher-student interactions, uses of technology and engagement. A detailed summary was written after each observation.
3. Interview: Teachers were interviewed about their use of technology in the classroom.
4. Survey: Students completed a survey that focused on their use of technology at school and at home. They also completed a drawing the prompt: “Think about the work you do in your classroom. In the space below, draw a picture of yourself writing in school.”
Results of the Study:
When comparing the 1:1 laptop classrooms and the shared cart classrooms, Russell et al found five compelling factors in instructional practices and learning activities. There were significant differences in the frequent use of technology, student motivation and engagement, classroom structure, computers used as a writing tool, and computers used for academic purposes.
First, Russell et al found that technology was used more frequently in 1:1 classrooms and concluded that "full computer access is associated with increased technology use" (Russell et al, 2004). When teachers and students have access to technology it makes sense that it would get used more frequently, than if they did not have access to it, or if it was not easily accessible. However, Russell et al state that the "magnitude of the difference in technology was dramatic" (Russell et al., 2004). For example, students in the shared laptop classrooms used computers for 15 minutes or less during class time and even 15-60 minutes a day, whereas in the 1:1 classrooms students used technology between 1 to 2 hours or more per day. The variety in the way they used the laptops also varied between the two settings. In the 1:1 classrooms, students used computers across all subject areas and for different purposes. One teacher commented that "“The ways in which they use technology are much more in depth: for presentations and note-taking they use PowerPoint, word processing is almost constant, the Internet has a much larger presence for science, social studies, and math" (Russell et al, 2004).
They also found that students' motivation and engagement was higher in the 1:1 classrooms and found that the learning became more student centered and at times it was individualized. Russell et al found that students in the 1:1 classroom found that peer conferencing was a strategy used two times more frequently than in the shared classrooms. While the data showed a significant difference, with students in the 1:1 classrooms being more engaged, teachers also reported that the students "appear more motivated and interested in assignments on the computer" and that increased laptop access had "leveled the playing field" for all students, including special education students (Russell et al, 2004).
The classroom structure was different between the 1:1 classroom and shared classrooms. These include student-student interactions, teacher-student interactions and even the way in which activities were structured. In the 1:1 laptop classrooms, students were observed working alone more often, which suggests that instruction is more individualized in this environment. Whereas, in the shared classrooms students were observed working in small and large groups more frequently. Teachers were also observed teaching the whole group nearly two times more frequently in the shared laptop classrooms. In contrast, peer conferencing was observed two times more frequently in the 1:1 laptop classrooms. Teachers also reported that they were able to individualize instruction with full access to technology.
Next, computers were the students’ primary writing tool in the 1:1 classrooms and used it many times throughout the day. It was observed that students in the 1:1 classrooms composed text on laptop computers more frequently than the students in the shared classrooms. More importantly though is that teachers commented that quality of writing had improved. One teacher stated that “the volume of writing has increased in all areas of the curriculum" and "teaching process writing has progressed more quickly" (Russell et al, 2004). They even viewed themselves as learners with laptops, revealing that computers are part of the learning process. The students survey results showed where they had to complete a prompt clearly reveals this. The prompt asked students to: “Think about the work you do in your classroom. In the space below, draw a picture of yourself writing in school.” Results showed that in the shared laptop classrooms students' pictures included a laptop and 2.9% using a desktop, whereas in the 1:1 classroom 91.9% of students depicted a laptop in their drawing (Russell et al, 2004).
Finally, it was reported by both the 1:1 laptop classrooms and shared laptop classrooms, that the most frequent use of computers at home was for playing games. However, results from the study show that students in 1:1 classrooms used the computer at home more frequently for academic purposes and reported that the second most frequent use of their home computer was to search the Internet for school related work, followed closely by searching the Internet for fun and writing papers for school. I wonder if this is because the teachers know that students will have access to computers at home and design their homework accordingly.
Important Factors:
Important factors that made this study successful:
Limitations:
There are some limitations in this research that needs to be noted.
Conclusions:
While there are some shortcomings with this research, evidence that teaching and learning changes with full access to laptops is apparent. Clearly, when full access to laptops is provided, technology use for a variety of academic purposes increases significantly. Between the two settings, 1:1 laptops and shared classrooms, there were differences in the frequent use of technology, student motivation and engagement, classroom structure, computers used as a writing tool, and computers used for academic purposes. Professional development, support of parents and a vision by the principal were important factors to the success of the program. As seen in this study, when students have full access to laptops on a permanent basis, student use rises to a level that is likely to result in increased learning across a variety of curricular areas. Russell et al state that for future research it would be important to study the use of technology on student achievement in high access settings, such as the 1:1 laptop classrooms (Russell et al, 2004).
How do the articles compare?
How does this article compare to "What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching?" by Dunleavy et al and "Kamehameha Schools Maui Laptop Project: Findings from Classroom Observations and Teacher Interviews?" by Rockman et al?
The research in Dunleavy included middle school students and staff, in Rockman et al, the study was conducted with high school students and in Russell et al, the research was in upper elementary classrooms. While Dunleavy and Rockman both reported classroom management as one of the challenges with 1:1 laptop use, the research in Russell did not mention classroom management as a challenge. For the research study in the upper elementary classroom by Russell et al, I wonder if classroom management strategies were discussed during the teacher's professional development sessions and staff meetings where teachers could openly discuss their concerns. I also wondered if classroom management wasn't a noted challenge in the upper elementary classrooms because parents, teachers and students were clearly motivated in the 1:1 laptop program.
Dunleavy, Rockman and Russell all describe how 1:1 laptops create effective learning environments and looks at instructional practices and learning activities. In these studies, instructional practices of the teachers had a significant impact effect on the "value" of the laptops. Also, teachers reported that instruction was more individualized with 1:1 laptops. In Dunleavy, drill and practice were the second most common use for 1:1 laptops in the classroom and this provided quick assessment and students could work at their own pace. Rockman et al found a variety of uses for computer use in the classroom including: laptops for Internet research, PowerPoint presentations, and word processing, teachers reported that students also conducted virtual dissections, created Web pages, and created a soundtrack CD to accompany a class reading. Russell found that computers were the primary writing tool and used laptops across all subjects.
All articles discussed the effectiveness of the laptops for teaching and learning, however none of these studies had results to show the effectiveness of the different teaching strategies. Yes, students were more engaged and the teachers were able to individualize instruction, but to what extent were using laptops effective? What were the effects for student achievement? Did the laptops help them understand the information better? Did it help them develop higher thinking skills? Russell et al effectively contends that there needs to be further research in 1:1 laptop use to determine the effects on student achievement (Russell et al, 2004).
Finally, an important factor for the success of computer use in the classroom, noted in all of the articles, is for teachers to have supports in place including professional development for training in using the technology effectively in the classrooms. In Russell et al, teachers had professional development for training in technology and time was allotted to share ideas and support each other through discussions at staff meetings. Rockman et al, also found that it is important that teachers receive training for all teachers that include the mechanics for using the laptops as well as support for integration of curriculum. Dunleavy contends the importance of quality training and modeling for teachers to create effective learning environments through instructional practice, resources, and assessment practices.
Bibibliography:
Russell et al. (2004) Laptop Learning: A Comparison of Teaching and Learning in Upper Elementary Classrooms Equipped With Shared Carts of Laptops and Permanent 1:1 Laptops. http://www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/Andover1to1.pdf